Course record ANTH
ANTH 2200
The Archaeology of Human History
University of Colorado Boulder
981 grades18 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score26/100
Below average
Jeffrey Scott Brzezinski 76 grades · 1 term 3.33GPA
76 letter grades
Compare with the course
Brzezinski vs. the course average
A
+15.7
B
−1.4
C
−8.4
D
−3.1
F
−2.9
Difference in percentage points.
1.3% withdrew · 1 of 77 enrolled.
Overall4.64 / 5
35 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.67
Technology4.93
Synthesis4.65
Collaboration4.36
Connection4.49
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.99
Inclusivity4.42
Grading4.94
Reflection4.81
Respect4.97
Creativity4.88
Feedback4.99
Interaction4.58
Challenge4.90
Questions4.85
Samantha Fladd 118 grades · 1 term 3.13GPA
118 letter grades
Compare with the course
Fladd vs. the course average
A
+2.8
B
+4.7
C
−5.8
D
−1.8
F
+0.1
Difference in percentage points.
4.1% withdrew · 5 of 123 enrolled.
Overall4.38 / 5
56 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration3.90
Connection4.40
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.60
Reflection4.40
Respect4.70
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.50
Questions4.60
William Taylor 95 grades · 1 term 3.12GPA
95 letter grades
Compare with the course
Taylor vs. the course average
A
+4.7
B
+4.7
C
−8.2
D
−3.3
F
+2.1
Difference in percentage points.
5.0% withdrew · 5 of 100 enrolled.
Overall4.48 / 5
56 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration3.70
Connection4.50
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.70
Reflection4.60
Respect4.80
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.70
Questions4.80
Douglas Bamforth 674 grades · 1 term 2.92GPA
674 letter grades
Compare with the course
Bamforth vs. the course average
A
−3.1
B
−0.7
C
+3.1
D
+0.8
F
−0.2
Difference in percentage points.
6.5% withdrew · 47 of 721 enrolled.
Overall4.30 / 5
199 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.29
Technology4.31
Synthesis4.11
Collaboration3.39
Connection4.28
Contribution3.82
Discussion4.14
Inclusivity4.46
Grading4.09
Reflection4.14
Respect4.58
Creativity4.21
Feedback3.63
Interaction4.08
Challenge4.31
Questions4.53
Rachel K Egan 18 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.63GPA
18 letter grades · Limited sample
5.3% withdrew · 1 of 19 enrolled.
Overall4.18 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.20
Synthesis3.60
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.00
Contribution3.80
Discussion3.80
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.20
Reflection4.60
Respect4.30
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.00
Challenge4.40
Questions4.40
Kelsey Rose Hoppes 61 reported responses 4.63Eval / 5
Overall4.63 / 5
61 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.61
Technology4.63
Synthesis4.31
Collaboration4.54
Connection4.70
Contribution4.43
Discussion4.82
Inclusivity4.61
Grading4.64
Reflection4.33
Respect4.56
Creativity4.33
Feedback4.31
Interaction4.45
Challenge4.54
Questions4.45
Carlton Quinn Gover 66 reported responses 4.61Eval / 5
Overall4.61 / 5
66 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.72
Technology4.71
Synthesis4.54
Collaboration4.52
Connection4.53
Contribution4.46
Discussion4.79
Inclusivity4.62
Grading4.64
Reflection4.76
Respect4.78
Creativity4.48
Feedback4.45
Interaction4.55
Challenge4.72
Questions4.72
Timothy Aaron Webmoor 85 reported responses 4.67Eval / 5
Overall4.67 / 5
85 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.94
Technology4.88
Synthesis4.88
Collaboration4.68
Connection4.92
Contribution4.88
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.86
Grading4.89
Reflection4.93
Respect4.91
Creativity4.91
Feedback4.25
Interaction4.95
Challenge4.93
Questions4.90
Nicholas Alexander Puente 48 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5
48 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.77
Technology3.85
Synthesis4.25
Collaboration3.38
Connection4.73
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.27
Inclusivity4.65
Grading3.83
Reflection4.61
Respect4.91
Creativity3.87
Feedback3.51
Interaction4.05
Challenge3.95
Questions4.87
Sarah Grace Buckser 22 reported responses 4.38Eval / 5
Overall4.38 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.25
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration3.95
Connection4.15
Contribution4.45
Discussion4.55
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.25
Reflection4.55
Respect4.75
Creativity4.35
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.55
Challenge4.40
Questions4.30
Erik Leslie Jurado 18 reported responses 4.21Eval / 5
Overall4.21 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.05
Collaboration3.70
Connection4.35
Contribution4.05
Discussion4.05
Inclusivity4.25
Grading4.15
Reflection4.55
Respect4.50
Creativity4.45
Feedback3.95
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.25
Questions4.30
Gabi Perry 43 reported responses 4.62Eval / 5
Overall4.62 / 5
43 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.39
Technology4.86
Synthesis4.06
Collaboration4.52
Connection4.57
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.91
Inclusivity4.91
Grading4.84
Reflection4.60
Respect4.81
Creativity4.36
Feedback4.85
Interaction4.87
Challenge4.76
Questions4.97
Sarah Maureen Simeonoff 18 reported responses 4.89Eval / 5
Overall4.89 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.95
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.15
Connection4.65
Contribution4.85
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.90
Grading5.00
Reflection4.90
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback5.00
Interaction4.95
Challenge4.90
Questions5.00
Olumide Ojediran 55 reported responses 4.00Eval / 5
Overall4.00 / 5
55 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.89
Technology4.12
Synthesis3.68
Collaboration3.22
Connection3.52
Contribution3.76
Discussion3.97
Inclusivity3.89
Grading3.74
Reflection3.87
Respect4.42
Creativity3.43
Feedback3.98
Interaction3.90
Challenge3.77
Questions4.45
Sasha Buckser 14 reported responses 4.44Eval / 5
Overall4.44 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.25
Technology4.25
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration3.80
Connection4.20
Contribution4.45
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.60
Reflection4.45
Respect4.85
Creativity4.05
Feedback4.05
Interaction4.65
Challenge4.75
Questions4.60
Leigh Elizabeth Alexander 12 reported responses 4.44Eval / 5
Overall4.44 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.25
Connection4.35
Contribution4.35
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.25
Reflection4.65
Respect4.75
Creativity4.15
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.45
Questions4.80
Gerardo Gutierrez 32 reported responses 3.29Eval / 5
Overall3.29 / 5
32 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.70
Technology3.90
Synthesis3.40
Collaboration2.50
Connection3.40
Contribution2.80
Discussion3.10
Inclusivity4.20
Grading3.00
Reflection3.50
Respect4.30
Creativity3.50
Feedback2.60
Interaction3.40
Challenge3.70
Questions3.60
Cristian Figueroa 10 reported responses 4.55Eval / 5
Overall4.55 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.55
Technology4.75
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.00
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.50
Reflection4.35
Respect4.85
Creativity4.65
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.35
Challenge4.85
Questions4.60
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.